Jesus fucking christ, how goddamn hard is it to just admit that you said something incredibly stupid and were wrong? What the hell is the mental defect that you have which renders you incapable of owning up to the moronic things you've said and instead compels you to handwave and backpeddle? I know this is a fairly common fault in most fundie fucktards but I was hoping you'd be one of the rare exceptions. I don't know why, but I was.

--------------I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

Jesus fucking christ, how goddamn hard is it to just admit that you said something incredibly stupid and were wrong? What the hell is the mental defect that you have which renders you incapable of owning up to the moronic things you've said and instead compels you to handwave and backpeddle? I know this is a fairly common fault in most fundie fucktards but I was hoping you'd be one of the rare exceptions. I don't know why, but I was.

Hey, gym rat, go back and read through the entire dialogue on the UD thread...actually read *all* the links. If you don't agree with me, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with you.

I don't take back a fugging word I've said. It's you jerks who need to learn to read and then admit when you're wrong. We go through this every time I post. A handful of you take everything I've written, twist it beyond recognition and then battle something I've not even said or supported. Later in the dialogue most of you tend to realize that what I ~actually~ wrote was not horrific at all.

Quit jumping the gun, relax, read thoroughly, and try to hold back the hatred for at least a few hours of thoughtful consideration before you bounce out of into the ring slugging. Gads.

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Not really my cup of tea, I have to say, although I find it interesting that you have a link to that report.

Rofl....ever hear of the Internet? You're using it right now!!!! Isn't that cool? You can actually use your search line to find anything in the world you would like to research!!! You should try it some time. It's a real time saver. How old are you anyway? Seems you should be up to date on this stuff.

Hey, gym rat, go back and read through the entire dialogue on the UD thread...actually read *all* the links. If you don't agree with me, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with you.

I don't take back a fugging word I've said. It's you jerks who need to learn to read and then admit when you're wrong. We go through this every time I post. A handful of you take everything I've written, twist it beyond recognition and then battle something I've not even said or supported. Later in the dialogue most of you tend to realize that what I ~actually~ wrote was not horrific at all.

Quit jumping the gun, relax, read thoroughly, and try to hold back the hatred for at least a few hours of thoughtful consideration before you bounce out of into the ring slugging. Gads.

"Gym rat". <*chortle*> You wound me deeply.

No, I've read through. I don't agree with you. There is something wrong with you. Something deep and fundamental. Not the least of which is your tendency to project. A lot.

Once again, as most here have told you when speaking for themselves, I don't "hate" you. You aren't worth that kind of strong emotion. Pity, yes. Contempt, yes. Disgust, hell yes. Hate, no. Sorry, you don't rate high enough. There's only one person on this earth who gets top billing as my arch-nemesis and you ain't her. Although, as much as I loathe this individual who has tried to cause me and mine harm, I would still donate blood, marrow, and even a kidney if she needed it to survive, although I wouldn't want her to know it was me who was doing it.

But I digress. You're still a contemptable redneck bigot where your brain checks out and the Jesus bullshit kicks in.

--------------I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

Hey, gym rat, go back and read through the entire dialogue on the UD thread...actually read *all* the links. If you don't agree with me, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with you.

I don't take back a fugging word I've said. It's you jerks who need to learn to read and then admit when you're wrong. We go through this every time I post. A handful of you take everything I've written, twist it beyond recognition and then battle something I've not even said or supported. Later in the dialogue most of you tend to realize that what I ~actually~ wrote was not horrific at all.

Quit jumping the gun, relax, read thoroughly, and try to hold back the hatred for at least a few hours of thoughtful consideration before you bounce out of into the ring slugging. Gads.

"Gym rat". <*chortle*> You wound me deeply.

No, I've read through. I don't agree with you. There is something wrong with you. Something deep and fundamental. Not the least of which is your tendency to project. A lot.

Once again, as most here have told you when speaking for themselves, I don't "hate" you. You aren't worth that kind of strong emotion. Pity, yes. Contempt, yes. Disgust, hell yes. Hate, no. Sorry, you don't rate high enough. There's only one person on this earth who gets top billing as my arch-nemesis and you ain't her. Although, as much as I loathe this individual who has tried to cause me and mine harm, I would still donate blood, marrow, and even a kidney if she needed it to survive, although I wouldn't want her to know it was me who was doing it.

But I digress. You're still a contemptable redneck bigot where your brain checks out and the Jesus bullshit kicks in.

I was teasing with the gym rat. I have no idea what makes you tick, although I'm curious. How you can disagree with my position is beyond me. I still don't think you get my argument. IM coming your way.

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

And not correct anyone when they totally mangled what was intially written in my post on the topic. You knew none of them would go back and read links...at least a handful of them never do. Then they go ape shit on me and beat away at a strawman. Hell, I only picked up 5 people on my site meter who ~eventually~ referred back to my initial post.

Way to create havoc, derail a thread, and cause even more unnecessary hatred.

Thing is, I know you get it....you get what I'm saying. You know I'm right, yet you can't freaking stand it. You say shit like "Ftk says homosexuality = pedophilia", but you know that was not the issue. All one has to do is read the post and know that I was refering to the Folsom Fair, and all the public crap that goes on there.

Fer shame.

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

"So, you equate sexual acts between consenting adults of the same gender with an adult male vaginally penetrating your neighbor's five year old daughter?"

FTK:

"Considering the sexual acts they seem to be promoting and the fact that these type of acts are usually for gratification only with no intent to form a loving, caring relationship with another person, YES...I do."

Then seem mystified by the response.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

um, because "a few hours" is what I told Wolf hound to wait and regurgitate everything that was written before she went ape shit on me.

I waited "a few hours" (which are the words I should have put in the quotes) before I went ape shit on you.

After several hours of thought in regard to everything that has transpired since your intial post on the topic, I believe you are an asshole for "stand(ing) back" and watching some of these folks manically toss strawmen all over the boxing ring. Makes them look stupid, and you look like a jerk.

Sleep well..good night.

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

"So, you equate sexual acts between consenting adults of the same gender with an adult male vaginally penetrating your neighbor's five year old daughter?"

FTK:

"Considering the sexual acts they seem to be promoting and the fact that these type of acts are usually for gratification only with no intent to form a loving, caring relationship with another person, YES...I do."

Then seem mystified by the response.

"Considering the sexual acts they seem to be promoting(go look at the folsom fair link I provided) and the fact that these type of acts are usually for gratification only with no intent to form a loving, caring relationship with another person, YES...I do."

Read my bold. That is NOT saying "homosexuality = pedophilia" dingbat. I didn't just say "YES...I do" which is obviously your favorite part of the quote. I clarified what I said. IT WAS A POST ABOUT THE FREAKING FOLSOM FAIR. All one has to do is follow the link I provided in my post.

You are mean and a lover of strawmen. ;P

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Thanks for the link to the Folsom* St Fair images FTK, they were HILARIOUS!

I doubt I'll ever go, S+M and homosexuality are not really my bag, but each to their own (so long as it's between capable, conscious, consenting adults etc).

Part A)

You are still equating CONSENTING acts (however unpleasant/undesired personally to/by you, the pope, my mum, the pizza delivery bloke) between ADULTS to the NON-CONSENTING VIOLATION of a CHILD.

Do you not see the problem there at all?

CONSENTING ACTS between ADULTS.

NON-CONSENTING ACTS involving the VIOLATION of a CHILD.

One of these things is not like the other.

Hmmmm I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this difference for you. That these are public acts you do not like and sexual acts you do not like, does not make them equivalent to raping children. It doesn't matter if it's the greatest excess of the Folsom Street Fair or the quietest and most polite act of private sex between a couple, these things are in no way like the non-consenting violation of a prepubescent child.

4) Have you ever used anything in your sexual practises other than just the bodies of you and your husband? (For example: sex toys, food, restraints)

See the answer above. I've tried a lot of things both with my wife and with other people, all consenting naturally.

5) Have you ever had anal sex? (Giving or receiving)

I have. Not telling you any more than that though. I'll leave it to your imagination.

6) Have you ever had public, or potentially public sex of any kind? For example "parking" in a car on "Makeout Point" or the equivalent. Perhaps on the beach or in a forest. Any sort of sexual act from passionate kissing on upwards where you might have been caught by some unsuspecting, and presumably disapproving, passer-by.

Deary me, I have, a lot!

7) With reference to 6), have you ever been caught?

Deary me, I have, more than once!

8) Have you ever had sex with someone you didn't love or don't intend to stay with in the long term. For example a one night stand or a "booty call" with a "fuck-buddy" (as I believe the youth are referring to such things)?

Good gravy! I have! Woohoo! Some of it was fantastic!

I could go on. There's a point here, well, several points here. All of the above is pretty tame. I could go on and make you really blush and perhaps even shock you, however, I'm feeling kind. Only slightly kind though.

What have YOU done that someone else might consider "deviant"? Judge not lest ye be judged and all, FTK. I'm more than happy to admit that I have engaged in a whole slew of sexual activity that was outside of a loving, caring relationship and was absolutely not aimed at forming one. I'm more than happy to admit it to it because it has all been perfectly consensual sex between capable adults, all of whom knew what they wanted, knew what they were doing and engaged of their own free choice. We all parted company undamaged as far as I am aware! I'm still in, infrequent but pleasant, contact with all my ex-girlfriends. Obviously I am not in contact with one night stands etc, but since I doubt those ladies were after anything more either and we parted on pleasant terms. I also doubt that they would be pining away with an altar to Louis in their back room, idolising the one that got away!

So the first point is this, I have engaged in a variety of sexual acts outside of, and definitely not intended to form a loving, caring relationship with another person purely for the sexual gratification of myself and my partner(s). Does this make me the equivalent of a paedophile? Can my sexual behaviour be equated to that of a paedophile? What about my wife, is she equivalent to a paedophile? Does her behaviour equate to that of a paedophile? Or is it just people who engage in homosexual/S+M/public acts at the Folsom Street Fair?

The main point here obviously being that for every act portrayed in the pictures you link I can find a heterosexual equivalent that you've (yet to) rail against as being equivalent to paedophilia. Google the "Cap D'Agde" if you don't believe me. That's not a fair that occurs for a few days, that's a whole resort aimed at a more {ahem} sexually liberal clientèle. The sub-point is that your criteria are far too narrow, and likely hypocritical. Does having a one night stand make you equivalent to a paedophile? Of course it fucking doesn't, and your dishonest shillyshallying around this thread doesn't disguise your prejudice and bigotry one jot. You are, as usual fooling no one.

The second point is who are YOU to judge the sexual mores and practises of others. Where did everyone else on the planet sign up to an arbitrary set of sexual standards that you (and your odious ideological chums) police? Please don't trot out the tired cliché of legality because there are any number of immoral things that are legal and moral things that are illegal in a variety of legal and moral systems. Morality does not equal legality.

Whilst you (and even I) might not personally engage in or even like (some of) the acts that some people at the Folsom Street Fair these people are engaging in these acts consentingly. They go to the fair, they participate (to the extent that they wish to), and they go home. They are not forcing you to go there and participate, they are not forcing themselves on children or non-consenting people, whether or not you or I enjoy, or would enjoy, what they are doing is utterly irrelevant. They enjoy it and are, most importantly, doing no one any more harm by engaging in those acts than you are I do when we engage in the acts we enjoy. Where does your moral authority derive from in equating (relatively) harmless sexual acts you don't like with the (demonstrably) harmful act of raping a child? Make your case as opposed to flannelling around and hyperventilating as you try to avoid the question.

Remember no one is saying you have no right to your views only that you support them honestly, with reason an evidence when you express them.

Third, if your point is that the acts that occur at the Folsom Street Fair are "abnormal" or "deviant" in the sense that they are "uncommon", then define "normal" or what standard they are deviating from. I used to play a lot of rugby, globally very few people play rugby, far less than are homosexual for example. Therefore playing rugby "deviates" from the "norm" of not playing rugby. I also saw the occasional willy in the showers after the match. Therefore by your pathetic "fundylogic" playing rugby, which involves visible willies, is equivalent to some other deviant act like, say, paedophilia, if that is the sense you are using those words.

Part C)

This:

Quote

I KNOW 98% of you agree with me, but you're too bloody stubborn to ever admit it, because God forbid you agree with FtK (gasp!).

Is yet another example unintentional hilarity from you.

No FTK, a huge number of people here and elsewhere do NOT agree with you on this at all. For good reason. You are wrong. Not because we, as people, disagree, but because your views disagree with the available evidence. See previous comments about why you are a bigot. People here (and elsewhere) disagree with you because you are wrong, not because they wouldn't want to agree with you. Interesting projection on your part though. Say something I agree with and I'll agree with you. Say something I don't and I won't.

Part D)

I read in a variety of your posts that you are keen to combat unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Excellent. So am I. I look forward to you promoting a woman's right to chose an abortion and opposing restrictions thereof. I look forward to you supporting efforts to combat fundamentalist inspired abstinence only/abstinence plus sex education and restrictions of access to contraception and "Plan B". I look forward to posts from you detailing the plethora of evidence that demonstrates the failure of abstinence only/plus sex education and restrictions on contraception as methods of controlling sexual infections and unwanted pregnancy. I look forward to your posts detailing the efforts you are putting in to liberate women and remove the shackles placed on women's sexuality and safety by fundamentalists with surprisingly similar views to your own.

Oh and by the way FTK, I've had some freaky, consensual, casual and non casual sex with a reasonable number of people. I've never had even one single sexually transmitted disease nor caused even one single unwanted pregnancy. I am far from alone in this. Like everything in life, sex can be engaged in for simple pleasure and gratification perfectly responsibly. Just FYI.

Part E)

From your original post at your Bleurg:

Quote

Interesting that homosexuals, who seem to be so disgruntled that Christians do not support their choice of lifestyle, carry on in such a manner that it provides support for the biblical view that homosexuality is a perversion.

Homosexuality is a perversion, hey? You're quite explicit you know FTK, you can't hide from your own words. Even your rapid goalpost shift here is insufficient.

"Homosexuality is a perversion", clear as day, in your words. The acts of people at the Folsom Street Fair support the view that homosexuality is a perversion. Not the acts at Folsom Street Fair are a perversion and "other homosexual activity is not a perversion", but "Interesting that homosexuals...carry on in such a manner that it provides support for the biblical view that homosexuality is a perversion."

All your denial and goalpost moving subsequent to that is simply dishonest, FTK. And you wonder why you are called on it. You don't want to appear to be the odious bigot and homophobe you are so you tap dance about in order to disguise it.

You claim the only difference between the acts at the Folsom Street Fair and paedophilia is that the lack of consent in the latter makes it ILLEGAL! Really? THAT'S IT? And in the same post you mention that people get jailed for acts like those at Folsom all the time. Hmmm would those acts be illegal then? Unless people are being jailed for those legal acts....

You can't even maintain coherence within a single post you are so confused a bigot!

Bahhhhh I'm done obliterating you. You're too pathetic to even mock sometimes. Answer those questions FTK, let's have a giggle and see if you can live up to the entirely arbitrary standards you claim the rest of the world should.

Have a sexy day, FTK.

Louis

*I was spelling it wrong before. I think Fulsom ----> Fulsome is better for comedy reasons though. I have heard of it though, and frankly it always seemed to me to be at the extreme end of things, hence why I am not desperate to go there particularly. The Burning Man festival however.....

"Considering the sexual acts they seem to be promoting(go look at the folsom fair link I provided) and the fact that these type of acts are usually for gratification only with no intent to form a loving, caring relationship with another person, YES...I do."

Read my bold. That is NOT saying "homosexuality = pedophilia" dingbat. I didn't just say "YES...I do" which is obviously your favorite part of the quote.

So, then, what you said was that you consider sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex of the kind they seemed to be promoting, acts that are usually for gratification only (with no intent to form a loving caring relationship), to be equivalent to a man vaginally raping a six year old girl.

And you are saying that only a dingbat could read that as "homosexuality = pedophilia."

And you're still mystified by the response.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

"Considering the sexual acts they seem to be promoting(go look at the folsom fair link I provided) and the fact that these type of acts are usually for gratification only with no intent to form a loving, caring relationship with another person, YES...I do."

Read my bold. That is NOT saying "homosexuality = pedophilia" dingbat. I didn't just say "YES...I do" which is obviously your favorite part of the quote.

So, then, what you said was that you consider sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex of the kind they seemed to be promoting, acts that are usually for gratification only (with no intent to form a loving caring relationship), to be equivalent to a man vaginally raping a six year old girl.

And you are saying that only a dingbat could read that as "homosexuality = pedophilia."

And you're still mystified by the response.

She's still mystified about shoelaces. Mystified is a perpetual state for FTK.

Actually that's unfair. I doubt FTK has a sufficiently functioning nervous system to achieve the lofty heights of "mystified". The only words I have for the mental state FTK exhibits are "house plant".

And I feel bad for slandering house plants.

Dull incomprehension and mystification would imply that the faculties for removing that mystification or for achieving comprehension exist. The more I interact with her, the more I doubt that faculty. Seriously, interacting with the FTKs of this world is actually damaging to my moral equilibrium. It causes me to doubt the humanity and human capacities of the people around me. That's never a good thing.

FTK,There's only really one thing I want to talk about. I mean, there are alot of things we could talk about. So I've picked one, one I've actually found quite interesting as I had not heard about it before I happened upon it as a by-product of this thread. And I rather think that makes us even and therefore immune to the "I'm not a scientist" defence.

Those !! jellyfish.

On this page you say:And this is the earliest mention of jellyfish on this thread, and I guess that's the whole basis for your position on the issue. That they look just like the "modern" jellyfish. I further presume, extrapolate rather as you've never really put the pieces togeter, that this also forms part of the basis that the earth "could be" 6000 years old. "Old" jellyfish look like "new" jellyfish and so maybe, perhaps, old jellyfish is really not that old after all?

The medusae jellyfish fossils have so far been found in seven layers in the quarry, representing some 12 vertical feet of rock and corresponding to a span of time of about one million years. Hagadorn, et. al. state that the quarry's features are "consistent with an intermittently exposed intertidal and shallow-subtidal setting that was probably located in a shallow lagoonal area with limited wind fetch . . . . within a possible sandy barrier island system on the flank of the Wisconsin dome may have further restricted the environment, and severe tropical storms provide a plausible mechanism for medusoid stranding.

And of course the point is that Walt Brown claims

Quote

Thousands of fossilized jellyfish have been found in central Wisconsin, sorted to some degree by size into at least seven layers (spanning 10 vertical feet) of coarse-grained sediments.[20] Evolutionists admit that a fossilized jellyfish is exceptionally rare, so finding thousands of them in what was coarse, abrasive sand is almost unbelievable. Claiming that it occurred during storms at the same location on seven different occasions, but over a million years, is ridiculous.

What happened? Multiple liquefaction lenses, vertically aligned during the last liquefaction cycle, trapped delicate animals such as jellyfish and gently preserved them as the roof of each water lens settled onto its floor.

Note how Walt uses the devastating critique of "unbelievable" and "ridiculous" to demolish the argument. And "liquefaction lenses"? A quick google search gives us 19 results and most refer back to creationscience.com, nothing relevant to the reader wanting to know more about this mechanism.

See the picture to the left of my name on every post FTK? It's a jellyfish!

So, I ask you, which account of the formation of those jellyfish fossils is more credible, given neither of us are going to go there and look for ourselves?

And when pressed on the idiocy of that (the "challenge" linked to involved publishing a book!) FTK you responded

Quote

Have you already forgotten why I have chose not to defend Brown's work?

News flash - I am not a scientist.

You have told me time and time again that I'm an idiot who is taken in by crackery and liars. Therefore, it is your obligation to debate the source rather than debate the idiotic uneducated followers of the lame theory.

You must debate the true source of your disgust in order for those of us who find these theories compelling to take your seriously. True, it would be a long and daunting task, but with a team of players it could be done.

Do it.

As I noted at the start I am not a scientist. Neither are you. I'm asking about your opinion regarding the book that at the time you were recommending everybody read and how it deals with the evidence (the fossils and their arrangement) and how the mainstream scientists deal with the evidence. Who's account do you find more credible?

Earlier you wanted to escape from the BW to respond to one of my posts. Well, ffs, respond to this then.

Ftk, now that you're back wasting space here it is time for a reminder. Please note that these questions are not posted to mock you (well, maybe a little but only around 5% mocking involved). These questions are posted to remind you that you are not who you think you are.

You claim to be an inquisitive, science-loving, curious, truth-seeking individual. These questions--not only unanswered but worse, UN-PONDERED--stand as a stark reminder of the falsity of your self-image.

A person who was truly interested in truth would explore these questions and seek out the answers. Knowledge in and of itself is a grand thing, FTK; it won't kill you (apples be damned). It's what you do or in your case, fail to do with knowledge that might kill you.

If you actually answer these questions, you might be surprised at what you discover. Some of them, number 56 for example, may even make you feel better about your faith.

So, how about it? I added a couple questions to the end to cover the recent NT discussions:

Quote

1. Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?NO

4. Why re you back posting here at AtBC? I believe I answered that on this page or the last page.checking the previous 3 pages, there is no answer from Ftk as regards this question. There are however, many complaints about having to answer questions and the ridiculous expectations of such. –blipey

9. In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science?

10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example?

11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE?

11A. Added. Do you understand what sequence evidence is?

12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks?

12A. Added. Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"?

13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID?

14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years?

15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published?

16. How?

17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction?

19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita?

20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008? Nebraska banned the electric chair as the sole method of execution. Did anything else happen?

Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books. Which begs several more questions I'll put here. Why is reading material important? Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them? Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you? Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go? Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to?

21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?

22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference?

23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down?

25. What year was the Flood over? 2300 BC, answer provided for Ftk by blipey

26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire? 2030 BC, answer provided by blipey

27. What was the population of the world in that year? 30,000,000, answer provided by blipey

28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people?

29. Is Dembski a creationist?

30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage?

31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia?

32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea?yes

33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police?

34. Are those same people Baptist?

35. What does this mean?

36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?

37. There are at least 40 distinct STDs. Were they distributed evenly among the passengers on Noah's ark, or was there like one Ultra-skank who had all 40?

38. Do you think that gravity is “just a theory” and therefore should be “taught critically” (to use the ID phrase)?

39. If not, what makes the details we don’t know about gravity different from the details we don’t know about evolution?

40. Do you believe Common Descent = Common Design?

41. Do you believe that Macroevolution = (not observed so did not happen)?

42. Despite the documented evidence, do you believe that macroevolution is based solely on historical inference?

43. Can you define macroevolution (in your own words)?

44. What evidence would confirm this?

45. Did God just make it look like the horse evolved, but in fact tinkered with the design along the way?

46. Is the horse the only thing that evolved, but everything else is designed?

47. Given your statement that the idea of the Geologic Column was introduced by Darwinists after 1860, FtK, were the "periods" and "eras" added after 1860 "to fit the evolutionary theory"?

48. Or, since the early 19th century work by Smith, Cuvier, et al. led to the identification of the Geological Column in the 1820’s, were they (periods and eras) devised by creationists before 1860 to fit the evidence?

49. Why is the Cambrian Explosion a problem for the Theory of Evolution?

50. Did the Cambrian Explosion occur?

51. If yes, can Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory still be valid?

52. Are there more ancient copies of the New Testament or of Egyptian hieroglyphics?

53. Since you believe that more equals true, which history should we believe is true, Egyptian or that in the New Testament?

54. What does this say about the Global Flood?

55. Name one person who can be shown to both: have known Jesus and written a book of the New Testament.

56. Which set of writings contain more morality stories: the New Testament or the collected Greek Myths?

just in case you are actually human and have feelings, i love brood sows. i had a friend in college who loved brood sows so much that she hand fertilized them. in fact she won an award for manually producing the most volume of hog semen in the least amount of time. your talents seem to lie in other areas though

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

just in case you are actually human and have feelings, i love brood sows. i had a friend in college who loved brood sows so much that she hand fertilized them. in fact she won an award for manually producing the most volume of hog semen in the least amount of time. your talents seem to lie in other areas though

What did the trophy look like?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

just in case you are actually human and have feelings, i love brood sows. i had a friend in college who loved brood sows so much that she hand fertilized them. in fact she won an award for manually producing the most volume of hog semen in the least amount of time. your talents seem to lie in other areas though

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

just in case you are actually human and have feelings, i love brood sows. i had a friend in college who loved brood sows so much that she hand fertilized them. in fact she won an award for manually producing the most volume of hog semen in the least amount of time. your talents seem to lie in other areas though

What did the trophy look like?

good question. i believe, IIRC, that it was a bonus check and her old man never quit bragging about it. when i pointed out that he aint exactly no boar hog he said it doesn't matter she can milk big hog dicks and little hog dicks just the same

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

just in case you are actually human and have feelings, i love brood sows. i had a friend in college who loved brood sows so much that she hand fertilized them. in fact she won an award for manually producing the most volume of hog semen in the least amount of time. your talents seem to lie in other areas though

What did the trophy look like?

good question. i believe, IIRC, that it was a bonus check and her old man never quit bragging about it. when i pointed out that he aint exactly no boar hog he said it doesn't matter she can milk big hog dicks and little hog dicks just the same

DID YOU ACTUALLY SAY MILK, HOMO?

ANYWAY FTK IS SOMEWHERE NORTH OF TEH TEA PARTY.

WHICH MITE MAKE HER FUN IF SHE EVER GETS OUT OF KANSAS WITH TOTO AN' TEH RED SHOES.